Marvel Mystery Oil

dmccormack said:
You think this might have been a clue?



:eek:
Click to expand...

Quote:
Examination of the engine revealed low compression on all cylinders, ranging from 44/80 to 5/80.


I wonder what they were before ? I know many of the rag dagers are tired old aircraft .
 
dmccormack said:
I'm buying a Chief so have signed up to an Aeronca web board.

Lo and behold the folks there seem sold on adding Marvel Mystery Oil to fuel (4 oz/ gal of 100LL).

I read the same thing in the Bonanza Society magazine.

What's going on?

Is MMO really the dirty little secret in aviation? Anyone else using it or encounter owner groups that promote its use?
Click to expand...

Cheaper, better to just use 2 cycle engine oil @ 1:1000 ratio.
 
Tom-D said:
What is an "APPROVED ADDITIVE" and what FAR requires us to have "APPROVAL"?
Click to expand...

You could ask the FAA:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2020-24B/$FILE/ac20-24b.pdf

"This advisory circular (AC) describes procedures which may be used for approving the qualification of fuels, lubricants and additives for use in certified aircraft engines. "

Lycoming offers their suggestions:

http://www.lycoming.com/support/publications/service-instructions/pdfs/SI1014M.pdf



FWIW:
THESE TERMS DO NOT REFER TO SUCH MINERALS COMMONLY KNOWN AS "TOP CYLINDER LUBRICANT", "DOPES", "CARBON REMOVER" WHICH ARE SOMETIMES ADDED TO FUEL OR OIL. THESE PRODUCTS MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE ENGINE (PISTONS, RING STICKING, ETC.) AND THEIR PRESENCE IN AN ENGINE WILL VOID THE OWNER'S WARRANTY.
Click to expand...

But what do those dumb engineers at Lycoming know...
 
Last edited:
I don't think I'd mind a snake infestation, and would far prefer one to a rat infestation. Snakes don't burrow or chew wood, they're quiet and would rather just stay out of sight.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Magnets are being sold to cure everything from arthritis to cancer. The people who buy those likely buy the fuel-line magnets, too.

Dan
Click to expand...

If anyone's interested, there are one or two really powerful magnets inside your hard drive. There's one holding a spaghetti sauce jar to a column in my basement, for no other reason than it looks cool.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
You could ask the FAA:
Click to expand...

You should use a FAR not a AC to prove your point.

The FAA can not use a AC to violate you, simply because they are non regulatory in nature.

AC = Advisory Circular, They tell us what the FAA likes, not what they demand.
 
I wish! You wish! Operating contrary to an AC can be looked at the same way as operating contrary to the AIM. Neither one is regulatory, but both provide best practices, and if you bend or break or kill something, they can be used as evidence of your careless and reckless behavior.

And to this particular thread, if you put MMO in your brand new engine, and it breaks, for whatever reason, the manufacturer WILL use it to deny any warranty claims, and they will win. If your engine failure results in an accident, the FAA will try nail you as well.
 
Tom-D said:
The FAA can not use a AC to violate you, simply because they are non regulatory in nature.
Click to expand...
They can, and they have. Not directly, mind you, but note that most (all?) AC's reference some regulation. They can and have said that failing to follow a procedure in an AC (ditto the AIM) constitutes violation of the reg for which that AC was written as guidance on how to comply. You may be able to convince the ALJ or NTSB that your alternate method of compliance with the underlying reg was sufficient, but many (most?) times, that won't work. Even if there's no reg specified, they can and have claimed that failing to follow the AC/AIM-recommended practice/procedure was careless/reckless (91.13). Stroll through the NTSB Opinions and Orders and you'll see what I mean.

As for MMO, if it was so darn good, the oil companies would buy it and put it in their products to obtain a competitive advantage -- like you see with Exxon using ingredients in their Elite oil which the guy behind CamGuard claims are the basis of his CamGuard (he also claims to be the guy who designed those additives for Exxon Elite -- wonder if Exxon is unhappy with his export of technology developed in their lab?).
 
Tom-D said:
You should use a FAR not a AC to prove your point.

The FAA can not use a AC to violate you, simply because they are non regulatory in nature.

AC = Advisory Circular, They tell us what the FAA likes, not what they demand.
Click to expand...

33.7.3
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
But what do those dumb engineers at Lycoming know...
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that Lycoming's engineers had anything to do with this. Their attorneys and upper management, yes. Engineers...I doubt it.

Not that it makes any difference. If you use MMO, your warranty is void. But this is purely a business decision for Lycoming. Publishing this gives them a "get out of jail free" card regardless of whether MMO does harm or not.
 
timwinters said:
I seriously doubt that Lycoming's engineers had anything to do with this. Their attorneys and upper management, yes. Engineers...I doubt it.

Not that it makes any difference. If you use MMO, your warranty is void. But this is purely a business decision for Lycoming. Publishing this gives them a "get out of jail free" card regardless of whether MMO does harm or not.
Click to expand...

The folks suggesting MMO are flying 50 year old Bonanzas and 60 year old Aeroncas.

Warranty isn't a problem. :smile:
 
Rotor&Wing said:
gibberish double talk.:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
Calling reality names doesn't alter the reality. Just like the other thread about NY state and federal law and handguns, the FAA (and NTSB) have an opinion on how their policies are imposed on you. And since they make the rules, enforce the rules, and adjudicate the enforcement of those rules, a prudent individual makes his own risk decision before deviating from their guidance.
 
TMetzinger said:
Calling reality names doesn't alter the reality. Just like the other thread about NY state and federal law and handguns, the FAA (and NTSB) have an opinion on how their policies are imposed on you. And since they make the rules, enforce the rules, and adjudicate the enforcement of those rules, a prudent individual makes his own risk decision before deviating from their guidance.
Click to expand...

I have a "guide" I wrote "Rotor & Wing's Guide to Better Aviation". If you don't follow it you will be violated by the FAA because I make several references to the FAR's in it.

Can the FAA violate you? They can, and they have. Not directly, mind you. :rolleyes:
 
Rotor&Wing said:
I have a "guide" I wrote "Rotor & Wing's Guide to Better Aviation". If you don't follow it you will be violated by the FAA because I make several references to the FAR's in it.

Can the FAA violate you? They can, and they have. Not directly, mind you. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You do get the difference between the AIM and ACs and other stuff published by the FAA, and your own guide, don't you?

Mind you, I'd like to read it. Why not post it here?
 
Ron Levy said:
They can, and they have. Not directly, mind you, but note that most (all?) AC's reference some regulation. They can and have said that failing to follow a procedure in an AC (ditto the AIM) constitutes violation of the reg for which that AC was written as guidance on how to comply. You may be able to convince the ALJ or NTSB that your alternate method of compliance with the underlying reg was sufficient, but many (most?) times, that won't work. Even if there's no reg specified, they can and have claimed that failing to follow the AC/AIM-recommended practice/procedure was careless/reckless (91.13). Stroll through the NTSB Opinions and Orders and you'll see what I mean.

That argumnent simply won't hold water, What we are talking about is the FAA violating you for not using the proper fuel in your aircraft. I would wager that many engines were rated on a fuel different than what you are buying at the pump.

Are you saying the AC quoted above will give the FAA the authority to violate any pilot who is using 100LL in an engine rated on 100/130?


As for MMO, if it was so darn good, the oil companies would buy it and put it in their products to obtain a competitive advantage -- like you see with Exxon using ingredients in their Elite oil which the guy behind CamGuard claims are the basis of his CamGuard (he also claims to be the guy who designed those additives for Exxon Elite -- wonder if Exxon is unhappy with his export of technology developed in their lab?).
Click to expand...

The FAA has refused to take a stand on what additives are used in aircraft. Simply because their "Approval" is only that the substance will not do damage to the system.

To have them in a NTSB hearing trying to prove that the susbstance caused the damage would be worth the ticket to watch.

The oil company sales staff have a job to do, and that job is to sell oil. the whole "WE have the best oil hype" is their sales pitch.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
33.7.3
Click to expand...

33.7 Engine ratings and operating limitations

(a) Engine ratings and operating limitations are established by the Administrator and included in the engine certificate data sheet specified in §21.41 of this chapter, including ratings and limitations based on the operating conditions and information specified in this section, as applicable, and any other information found necessary for safe operation of the engine.

(2) Fuel grade or specification.

(3) Oil grade or specification


It is a reach to say the MMO at the levels they reccommend are changing the spec or grade of the fuel or oil.

and OBTW the aircraft that were certified on CAR 3 are the ones we use MMO in most.

the manufacturers are the ones that are making the decision as to what oil/fuel grades to be used. not the FAA.

and manufacturers can only make recomendations not rules.
 
AS long as any manufacturer doesn't ask the FAA to issue an AD to stop substances from being used in their products we are pretty must free to put in any thing we want.
 
Tom-D said:
That argumnent simply won't hold water, What we are talking about is the FAA violating you for not using the proper fuel in your aircraft. I would wager that many engines were rated on a fuel different than what you are buying at the pump.
Click to expand...
And I suspect they would violate you if the fuel was not authorized in the TCDS or the engine mfr's Service Instructions, like SI 1070P from Lycoming.
Are you saying the AC quoted above will give the FAA the authority to violate any pilot who is using 100LL in an engine rated on 100/130?
Click to expand...
No. That is, as you well know, an authorized substitution. I was speaking in general terms about the FAA's penchant for pointing out failure to follow AC's when writing up a pilot for violating the reg underlying the noted AC.
 
Tom-D said:
AS long as any manufacturer doesn't ask the FAA to issue an AD to stop substances from being used in their products we are pretty must free to put in any thing we want.
Click to expand...
And the FAA is pretty much free to write you up for introducing an unauthorized substance into your engine, especially if a bad event results.
 
Tom-D said:
33.7 Engine ratings and operating limitations

(a) Engine ratings and operating limitations are established by the Administrator and included in the engine certificate data sheet specified in §21.41 of this chapter, including ratings and limitations based on the operating conditions and information specified in this section, as applicable, and any other information found necessary for safe operation of the engine.

(2) Fuel grade or specification.

(3) Oil grade or specification


It is a reach to say the MMO at the levels they reccommend are changing the spec or grade of the fuel or oil.

and OBTW the aircraft that were certified on CAR 3 are the ones we use MMO in most.

the manufacturers are the ones that are making the decision as to what oil/fuel grades to be used. not the FAA.

and manufacturers can only make recomendations not rules.
Click to expand...

The only thing CAR 3 specifies about fuel is the minimum octane rating:

§ 3.747 Fuel octane rating. The minimum octane rating of fuel required for satisfactory operation of the power plant at the limits of §§ 3.745 and 3.746.

I doubt seriously that adding small amounts of MMO will alter the octane rating especially when you consider these old engines were designed to run on 80 octane.

MMO has been used for years as a fuel and oil additive and I've never seen the FAA get concerned over anyone using it nor have I seen or heard of anyone developing engine problems by using it.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Please show me where a pilot has used MMO and had a "bad event" and the FAA wrote him up for it.
Click to expand...
There's one case where the NTSB attributed the accident to the use of MMO, but I have no idea if anyone was violated over it.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20020916X01610&ntsbno=NYC02LA181&akey=1

Of course, the ratio was much higher than recommended by the MMO folks.

I got a kick out of this case, where the FAA used MMO in the investigation....

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001208X05784&ntsbno=IAD96FA085&akey=1

I use MMO in my Continental; 4 oz every 10 gallon fill in the fuel, and an occasional addition of 4 oz to the oil. Two separate crochety old A&Ps recommended it...and who am I to fight crochety old A&Ps? I'm flying an Experimental, my engine is ~60 years out of warranty, so I'm OK.

I can quite confidently state that it works perfectly as an elephant repellant; I have not had a single elephant problem since I started using it.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Ron Levy said:
And the FAA is pretty much free to write you up for introducing an unauthorized substance into your engine, especially if a bad event results.
Click to expand...

what FAR will they use?

21.7 Continued airworthiness and safety improvements for transport category airplanes. top

that does not apply to your part 91 aircraft.
 
Tom-D said:
what FAR will they use?
Click to expand...
91.9(a) and 33.7(b). If the fuel or oil spec doesn't include MMO, and the FAA hasn't given other authorization to use it (as they have for CamGuard), then introducing it into the fuel/oil supply would violate those regs.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
All cylinders on the right engine were sprayed with marvel mystery oil. After a few minutes the pistons freed and the engine rotated.

That's priceless!
Click to expand...

Hmmm...and done at a Lycoming facility under the supervision of the FAA!


Trapper John
 
Ron Levy said:
91.9(a) and 33.7(b). If the fuel or oil spec doesn't include MMO, and the FAA hasn't given other authorization to use it (as they have for CamGuard), then introducing it into the fuel/oil supply would violate those regs.
Click to expand...

FAR 33 doesn't apply to CAR 3 built airplanes.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
FAR 33 doesn't apply to CAR 3 built airplanes.
Click to expand...
I see no such limitation in 14 CFR 33.1 which defines the applicability of Part 33. In any event, the fundamental issue is that of the limitations in the aircraft's or engine's type certification, which according to 33.7 must include fuel and oil grade/spec. If you can find one which doesn't set the specs for fuel and oil to be used, or includes MMO as an authorized additive, I'd like to see it.
 
Ron Levy said:
I see no such limitation in 14 CFR 33.1 which defines the applicability of Part 33.
Click to expand...


The airplane in question in the original post of this thread is an Aeronca Chief. The Aeronca Chief and it's engine were certified under the CAR's.

You're trying to use regulations for aircraft that are certified after the CAR's and apply them to CAR aircraft. You can't do that.

33.1 Applicability.

(a) This part prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of type certificates and changes to those certificates, for aircraft engines.
(b) Each person who applies under part 21 for such a certificate or change must show compliance with the applicable requirements of this part and the applicable requirements of part 34 of this chapter.

§ 21.1 Applicability.

(a) This part prescribes—
(1) Procedural requirements for the issue of type certificates and changes to those certificates; the issue of production certificates; the issue of airworthiness certificates; and the issue of export airworthiness approvals.
(2) Rules governing the holders of any certificate specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and
(3) Procedural requirements for the approval of certain materials, parts, processes, and appliances.


Ron Levy said:
In any event, the fundamental issue is that of the limitations in the aircraft's or engine's type certification, which according to 33.7 must include fuel and oil grade/spec. If you can find one which doesn't set the specs for fuel and oil to be used, or includes MMO as an authorized additive, I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...


The TCDS doesn't say you can't use an additive. It just spells out minimum fuel octane and grade of oil.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
The airplane in question in the original post of this thread is an Aeronca Chief. The Aeronca Chief and it's engine were certified under the CAR's.

You're trying to use regulations for aircraft that are certified after the CAR's and apply them to CAR aircraft. You can't do that.
Click to expand...
OK, then what does the type certificate say about what fuels/oils are authorized for use in that aircraft/engine? Remember, if the aircraft is not in conformance with its type certificate or in an approved altered condition, it isn't legally airworthy and 91.9 says you can't fly it. Seems to me that if the engine contains a fuel or lube product not listed in its type certificate, it's not in conformance with its type certificate. What's your basis for the approved altered condition with whatever magic elixir you choose to add to the fuel or oil?
The TCDS doesn't say you can't use an additive. It just spells out minimum fuel octane and grade of oil.
Click to expand...
The TCDS (or other appropriate documents) tells you what you're allowed to do in this regard. Anything else is unauthorized. The TCDS doesn't say you can't put auto fuel in the engine of this plane, either, but I'll bet the FAA will be upset if you do so without an autogas STC. Ditto putting in automotive oil. So what makes you think you can legally throw in additives not approved by the FAA for use in that engine?
 
Last edited:
Might as well give up, Ron. Think of the law of Readiness. There's no way there's gonna be a teachable moment here.

Why, yes, I have been hitting FOI pretty hard recently.
 
Ron Levy said:
The TCDS (or other appropriate documents) tells you what you're allowed to do in this regard. Anything else is unauthorized. The TCDS doesn't say you can't put auto fuel in the engine of this plane, either, but I'll bet the FAA will be upset if you do so without an autogas STC. Ditto putting in automotive oil. So what makes you think you can legally throw in additives not approved by the FAA for use in that engine?
Click to expand...

The TDCS for the Aeronca Chief specifies: "Fuel: 73 min. octane av. gas"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top